It isn't a horrible idea, but there are a couple concerns I would have with it.

1. It would favor passing oriented teams verses run oriented team a bit.

2. What would happen on a defensive penalty that was less than 15 yards but generated a first down. Defensive holding would come to mind. Would it result in a first down and retain possession? It would be just another play that we get to watch the offensive players beg for a flag. Any Flag.

What I do like about it is:

1. It eliminates probably the most ridiculous play in football.. the onside kick.

2. It will reduce the risk to the players overall with probably the most dangerous play in the game with the most high impact collisions.

&quot said:

Sean Gregory of TIME writes that one of the options being considered for replacing kickoffs entails giving the ball to the team that would have been kicking off at its own 30, automatically facing a fourth down and 15 yards to go. The team can then choose to punt or go for it, via fake punt or otherwise.

1. Why change? What reason is so important to justify making such a huge change to the way the game has been played since the beginning?2. Nobody's going to go for it, and on the rare occasion that they will, you're replacing one trick "ridiculous play" with another.

You should be glad that NSD isn't here anymore to pull his statistics out of him bum saying that kickoffs are not particularly dangerous as compared to other plays. I guess my fear is that we can make all the changes in the world to make the game safer and safer, but at some point you need at accept that this is a rough game where people get hurt. Should we prevent people from turning themselves into missiles and launching their head into someone else's? Sure. Should we prevent people from using others' facemasks as a tackle-handle? Of course. But this isn't a minor rule change, this is a fundamental change to special teams in general. As such, there's a much higher burden to prove that this change is NEEDED, and not that it will just prevent one or two injuries a year.

From experience.. I can tell you.. it is the heaviest hits you will take on average game in and out.

But stats to support it.

Quote:

While I don’t have access to the NFL’s data, I did find this study on high school athletes, entitled “Effects of Time in Competition, Phase of Play, and Field Location on Injury Severity in High School Football” by Ellen E. Yard. Some of the lowlights as it relates to injuries for high school football players:

32.7% of injuries on kickoffs and punts were “severe” (defined as 21 or more missed days), compared to 19.3% on other plays.20.3% of injuries on kickoffs and punts were concussions, compared to 10.9% on other plays.

Look.. they don't get any more traditional in the aspects of the game than I. Ask ZombieSlayer. lol.

But the risk vs reward of the kickoff isn't there with 10 guys running full speed smashing into other guys going in the opposite direction at varying speed. Law of physics will tell you there are more high speed hits in that single play (even in touchbacks) than the remainder of the plays on the field. Full speed contact that is.

This option, you still have the return element involved.. just you will not have as much full speed contact involved.

I remember all the worry about the kickoff placement change.. it will ruin the game. Really.. has anyone really noticed? Removing this play from the game, an ever evolving game, really isn't that big of a deal other than to maybe 2 to 3 players on the roster that make their living on this aspect of the game. And most of those will be retained for the punt returns.

One more note on this.. I present this argument with the aspect that the game is under fire from lawsuits and safety concerns.

The game has changed and will continue to change with concussion being the primary focus. I would rather lose a play like this than them continuing to march down the road of fines and taking more and more contact out of the game.

That is kind of the attitude I accepted late in the 2010 season, besides being still pissed about the CBA.. I also accepted that the game I fell in love with as a child will be changing over the course of this decade due to liability lawsuits.

The NFL, regardless of how they present it, is trying to show that they are changing and that player safety is the priority. We all know money is the priority.. and player safety is directly tied to that cash cow.

Hence the over reactions to hits and blocks.. they are in a time crunch to show change.

My point here is this.. if they are going to change the game, I would rather this aspect change than further watering down the aggressive nature of the game.

This is really getting old. They are trying to take the hits out of the game, because players file lawsuits, yet the players are the ones who don't want to remove the hits from the game in the first place. I say, ask the players. Do you want the hitting removed for your own safety, or do you want to risk it. this isn't 50 years ago where they can play dumb and say we didn't know.

This is really getting old. They are trying to take the hits out of the game, because players file lawsuits, yet the players are the ones who don't want to remove the hits from the game in the first place. I say, ask the players. Do you want the hitting removed for your own safety, or do you want to risk it. this isn't 50 years ago where they can play dumb and say we didn't know.

Agreed.. Lawyers will be the death of all things good on the face of this earth.

I guess I'm just less quick to accept that this is the way it has to be. It probably is, but it doesn't mean that I need to settle for the lesser of two evils - I still have some hope that the Players Union and past players stop pretending that they never knew that playing football could cause long-term damage, sign a waiver saying that any injuries sustained during a game are not the responsibility of the NFL and rattle off all known immediate and delayed physical issues associated with football, give the players and union a few goodies and call it a day.

Regardless of what the end results might turn out to be, this isn't about player safety and it isn't about what's good for the game. This is about political games, and both sides (NFL and players/union) need to grow up and find a more acceptable solution than turning the game upside down and inside out.

I guess I'm just less quick to accept that this is the way it has to be.

I had the same hope prior to the lockout.. that failed. I continually watch players hold out in the second year of contracts for more pay. We see owners and the league office screw fans out of seats sold.

Time after time we see money put before the game.

This time.. it is a cash grab by players of the past.. looking for a cut of the pie the NFL has become. Just like the owners and to a degree the league itself.. they give two shits about the game itself as the priority. It is and will be going forward about the money.

It is all relative to society.

Much like the cost of living raise the Wisconsin Representatives want to give themselves as the rest of the working population hasn't seen that in a couple years. Money is truly the root of the problem.

Quick to change.. not really.. this has been increasing year in and out. Just don't see it changing.

In the overall scheme of things this would be bad for the smaller market (not Green Bay.) & weaker teams as the need for the 45th-53rd players to be special team would be somewhat eliminated. (Yes there will still be punts for a while.) That means the bigger market teams like Dallas will look to fill their rosters with players who will contribute on offense and defense. They will be able to stash more dbs, lbs and wrs on their rosters. The same for the teams with stronger winning traditions.Players who would get more playing time on teams like Jacksonville or Kansas City will opt to sit in reserve and be ready to step in when injuries occur on the bigger better teams. The larger markets will not see the significant drop off due to injuries that other teams will have. Many players would rather sit and have a chance for a SB ring than to play more on a perennial losing teaming.Parity will be in jeopardy.

I think there is something about a 'kickoff' to start a game, or half that just shouldn't be eliminated. It gets people pumped up. How many times have you heard someone say 'oooh cant wait for the first snap' versus 'oooh cant wait til kickoff'?

Kickoff to start the game.Kickoff to start 3rd quarter.When team scores, they get 4th and 20 on their own 35 yard line to which they can go for it, or punt.

Punting from the 35 gives more opportunities of pinning someone back, thus, raising the importance of a punter to slightly offset the loss of value of a "kickoff specialist" which I don't think are too many anymore.

2. What would happen on a defensive penalty that was less than 15 yards but generated a first down. Defensive holding would come to mind. Would it result in a first down and retain possession? It would be just another play that we get to watch the offensive players beg for a flag. Any Flag.

i am sure i am missing something, but what does this have to do with kickoffs or the lack there of?

If they went ahead and gave you 4th and 15 instead of giving you a kickoff, any sort of defensive penalty giving an automatic first down would be huge.

still have no idea what you guys are talking about.

edit: just went through the rest of the thread. Are these comments based on the idea that after a score there would be some sort of 4th down and not just the other team getting the ball at the 20? where did that come from?

edit: just went through the rest of the thread. Are these comments based on the idea that after a score there would be some sort of 4th down and not just the other team getting the ball at the 20? where did that come from?

If you score a FG or TD, you kick the ball to the other team...currently... the proposed alternative from Roger Goodell is instead of kicking off, the team whom scored retains the ball on the 30 yard line on a 4th and 15 situation to which they can go for it (simulating the opportunity of an onsides kick) or they can elect to Punt the ball.

If you score a FG or TD, you kick the ball to the other team...currently... the proposed alternative from Roger Goodell is instead of kicking off, the team whom scored retains the ball on the 30 yard line on a 4th and 15 situation to which they can go for it (simulating the opportunity of an onsides kick) or they can elect to Punt the ball.

Based on the injury stats for punt and kickoff plays posted earlier in the thread, what the hell would this idea accomplish?

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.